JAGDISH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challange in this petition is to the order of termination of service dated 11.9.1975 passel by S.P., Delhi under proviso to rule 5 of the C.C.S. (Temporary service) Rules 1965 and to the appellate order dated 29.11.1975 annexures 'C' and 'D' to the petition. The orders have been challenged on the grounds of discrimination, being violative of Articles 14, 16, 311(1) and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed to the post of S.I. in Delhi Police by open competitive examination by order dated 5.6.1975 along with several other persons. He was selected in 15% reserved quota for schedule castes community. Soon after his appointment, the petitioner was sent up for training to the Police Training School, Mehrauli. He had hardly completed three months and 18 days in training while impugned order terminating service was served on him while his juniors who were appointed along with him, were retained service. According to petitioner though the order is innocuous in form it is in fact punitive and by way of punishment when seen in the context of the circumstances preceing, attendant and posterior to it and had been made with a view to penalise the petitioner for what was considered by the authorities to be suppression of facts regarding conviction of the petitioner u/s 112/117 of the Bombay Act by not mentioning the same in attestation form. As such it was felt by the authorities that he would not make himself a good police officer and a memo to that effect was issued by the Asstt. I.G. of Police, Delhi. The said memo is :

(3.) The petitioner has admitted his conviction u/s 112/117 of the Bombay Act in his petition. However, the case of the petitioner is that after his graduation he along with his college colleagues while returning from a partyonl3.10.1974 were suddely caught by Shri Pritam Singh, S.I. Police station, (Darya Ganj u/s 112/117 Bombay Police Act and those who had money in their pocket were let off by the said S.I. after relieving them of the said money but the petitioner unfortunately and his other college colleague namely Danish Kumar had no money in their pocket and as such they were challaned u/s 112/117 of the Bombay Police Act. They were made to understand by the said S,I. that the offence was of a trivial nature and they being teenager? could be let off by paying the small fine. In the circumstances, they were made to plead guilty to the offence and were fined Rs. 30.00 each. The petitioner paid the fine after borrowing money. The petitioner has further alleged that his father was working as 'dhobi' with Shri I.J. Verma, Deputy I.G. of Police at the relevant time. The said Shri I.J. Verma was the Chairman of the Selection Board in which the petitioner was selected. The petitioner disclosed his cviction to Shri Verma and asked him whether it was necessary to mention the same in his attestation form. Shri Verma told him that the said conviction under the Bombay Act was not a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude and no F.I.R. having been registered such a conviction did not incur any disqualification for Govt. service or Police service and hence such conviction is not to be treated as bar to the appointment of the petitioner and it was not necessary to mention the same in the attestation form. The petitioner, bonafide, believing the same to be true, did not mention it in his attestation form. This fact that the basis of the termination is the non-disclosure of the conviction in the attestation form has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by Shri Rajinder Mohan, Dy. Comm. (Crime) on behalf of the respondent. It is further clear from the record produced by the respondents that the basis of the order was the non-disclosure of the said fact in the attestation form and besides that there was nothing against the petitioner.